Great News! Donations to support mushroomobserver.org can now be made on a tax-deductible basis!Mushroom Observer, Inc., has been recognized as a section 501(c)(3) public charity serving educational purposes. Your donations will help us maintain free online access to all the mycological observations already recorded, and to continue to improve the platform to make the collected information even more useful.Donate Today!

Comments

Forms a monophyletic group with Galerina subg. Galerina sect. Mycenopsis (sensu Gulden), although all of the hits in that blast seem to correspond to other species in sect. Galerina, and subg. Tubariopsis.

I didn’t notice how high up in the results this Galerina vittiformis voucher is. That might make this pretty close to Galerina sensu stricto since that’s the type species — if this really does represent G. vittiformis. Petersen et al. didn’t have any sequences of G. vittiformis. It looks like the sequence will be part of a work on “Inocybes and other fungi of the Pacific Northwest” which seems pretty interesting.

…found this species to be the most basal member of their “crepidotoid” clade, with the topology (Pholiota tuberculosa + ((Pleuroflammula + Inocybe) +
(Simocybe + Crepidotus))). Out of those clades, only (Simocybe + Crepidotus) was fairly robust though. It could be that this needs a new genus. It likely isn’t very close to Pholiota, but the whole “agaricoid” clade is pretty poorly resolved. Galerina in the current sense (anyone know what “sensu ___” this would be?) is definitely polyphyletic, so it could be that some members are closer to this than to Galerina. Here’s the link. It’s not open access but I can send anyone interested a PDF of the article.